Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

I'm a user, administrator, and implementer of Wireless WAN. I work in a large company and we use the system throughout our campus sites. We mainly use version 5508 and for smaller sites, we use 2504. There are more recent products but I don't have experience with them. We currently have 50,000 people using the Cisco Wireless WAN and have no plans for further expansion.

Improvement to our organization would be in terms of IoT, I would say, because some buildings are fully covered by WiFi. We're talking about large buildings of 60 access points per building. Users have benefited from full coverage and of course, that includes cell phones which also connect to WiFi, and using the guest wireless, and the ICP. Reduction in mobile data costs has allowed for increased savings, thanks to our corporate WiFi.

Valuable features for me would be the friendly GUI. It's not a feature as such but it's the first thing I would point out because troubleshooting is very easy on it. I can literally point down to a single host, find roughly where he's located and examine the strength of his connectivity. Also, I find the mobile anchoring to be handy although compared to the newer solutions it's a little old. 

Improvement could be made in the planning - WiFi survey and planning, and WiFi key mapping - should both be included in high-end devices. You would expect them to be included in such a product. When we bought it, 5508 was a high-end device. Some aspects could be achieved automatically by the wireless controller. For example, if there is a single access point deployed in a densely populated area, there will be many users and all those users bring down the speed. I think an option where the range of the access points is determined by the signal strength of the end-users would be good. There should be a mechanism mitigating that because when a user with a low WiFi signal connects, he basically crashes the experience for everyone else. Some automation on their part would be good.

A neat feature that some of the other vendors have is that of informing, where I can tell the access point to narrow down its signal and focus it in a specific direction. That is very handy, for example, in long corridors where you don't want the access point to spread its signal everywhere but rather focus it to a narrow field of vision, so to speak. That's a feature I would like to see. Vendors like Aruba have things like tracking mobile devices. That would also be a handy feature because it allows you to pinpoint areas that have low WiFi coverage. Another feature would be a dynamically generated heat map. Let's say you can see on a heat map where the user has been and can follow his WiFi experience in terms of signal to noise ratio, signal strength and the like as well as interference by other machines detected in that path, how the access points see each other and the strength of signal they're producing. The only thing missing is the piece of software that could show you that graphically.

I would like to see a centralized management where I don't need to log on to every controller and then proceed from there. Also, a centralized management for multiple wireless control deployments and, of course, features such as user tracking so I can pinpoint the user, all the way down to the wireless control access point and switch that the access point is connected to. 

It's a very stable device when used properly by people who know how to configure it; a high-end quality device. Recently some of the access points have started to break down but they are over 10 years old, which is quite good.

The product is very good quality with high scalability in my view.

We currently have around 10 people in our maintenance team

Prior to Cisco, we used Palo Alto. The switch was made to Cisco because we wanted to standardize the network throughout the company. 

The setup is relatively straightforward. To configure the controllers with prep time and IP address, would take a couple of hours, give or take.

I wasn't involved in the decision-making process about alternative options before we went with the Wireless WAN.

We use dedicated wireless control for our campuses in a redundant topology, active/passive. We use both Flex connect and local, essentially switched networks. Our company uses physical machines, not cloud-based wireless controls.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

The most valuable feature of Cisco Wireless WAN is the ease of management.

We have had some problems connecting to the internet with Cisco Wireless WAN, but it is not the equipment or configuration. Additionally, the integration with access control security could improve.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for approximately five years.

The support is useful and has helped us resolve issues we have had.

The setup of Cisco Wireless WAN is easy using the web interface.

I have a team that does the implementation and configuration of the solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a nine out of ten.

We have many computers that we have connected to this network device.

In the future, Cisco Wireless WAN could improve its ability to expand.

I have been using this solution for two years.

The solution could be more stable.

I have found the scalability to be good. We have approximately 200 people using the solution in my organization and we have plans to increase usage.

The technical support we have experienced has been good.

I have used Ubiquiti previously and this solution is more stable.

The installation is straightforward.

Our IT department is approximately 50 people and we have a team of five technicians that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

There is a license that is needed for the use of this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a seven out of ten.

This product makes up part of our wireless network infrastructure.

The most valuable feature is the ease of configuration. Most of the questions one would have about setup are already identified in the troubleshooting guide.

The user interface is ok.

The prices are high and should be reduced in order to be more competitive.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for more than five years.

In the five years that we have used it, we haven't had any problems. It has now reached end-of-life.

The scalability is very nice and we don't have any issues with it. We have about 500 users across the entire staff. They work in HR, admin, production, operations, and other roles.

The technical support is very nice and we have no issues with it.

We have traditionally used Cisco and are finally now changing because of the price.

The initial setup is okay. It takes about three months to implement.

Our in-house team handled the deployment. No maintenance is required any longer, although we have two IT people who are able to manage it.

With the increase in the price of this product, we will instead be replacing it with another vendor. It was a one-time fee and there are no costs in addition to this.

We are evaluating other solutions that are most cost-effective. Cisco is more expensive than either Aruba or SonicWall.

Whatever they have in this product is already the best in the market, and I recommend it for people who can afford it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for streaming access to the personal devices of students and staff for guest wifi and connection. So we provide corporate access to devices. They use it for media streaming, for social networking, for learning solutions. Most people don't connect through land cable anymore - they all go for wireless options.

I like that it has integrated the cost of our network access. We see identity controls solutions so we make sure it's all part of the same management console. We have the same console and the same authentication, and we use a multi-high profile defendable wireless system, access ports, and wireless access IDs. So each access ID has different kinds of people, different kinds of networks, the VLAN. Cisco controllers are now the best in this field. We end segregation on the Wi-Fi side based on the access ID.

The solution is very expensive, and I think the price should be more competitive, like with Aruba, Meraki, and other products. The price model is very high but the manageability is simple. 

We have some glitches from time to time, but the support is fast and they support us very well. This doesn't happen very often, though.

The technical scalability is easy, but the license scalability is quite tricky. It's licensing costs incurred, but technically the solution is very scalable. A total of 5,000 users are using the 3000 access points, and 2,600 users are using 800 access points. I am the architect and the rest of the users are basically university students, faculties, administration staff, and support staff who mainly use for media, social net access, corporate file access, academic system access, and learning solution access. And it used for radio-audio frequency wireless tools.

The support is good and I will rate them a seven out of ten.

As a typical Cisco solution there is a slight complexity to the setup, but because most of the engineers at Cisco are certified, it is easy for them. The integrators used a professional space on the vendor site for the deployment.

This is a very expensive solution but there are no additional costs.

We compared it to Aruba Wireless. Aruba has its own strength in the latest technology, their architects are very different, and they are more advanced. So I think Cisco is one step behind Aruba.

My advice to others is to understand the use case properly before deploying any solution. If you don't have a complex use case and if you can't afford it, don't get Cisco. But if you have a complex use case with a high frequency, high bandwidth of data usage in a wireless network, Cisco is the right product for you. The licensing strategy and the pricing could be improved, but it is a good solution. I rate it a seven out of ten. 

Cisco Wireless access points are highly stable with a wide coverage area. 

I have used Cisco Wireless WAN for seven years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is highly scalable. We have around 200 users. If we need more Wi-Fi coverage, we can purchase more equipment and add another access point. 

Cisco support is fast and helpful. 

It isn't complex if you have experience with Cisco equipment. You have to make room on the access point and ensure it is controlled. It might be difficult for a new user. The setup is large, and there are a lot of configuration options.  It takes about two days to configure all the access points. You need to set up the equipment, make the SSID, and configure the traffic settings for the access point.

Though Cisco Wireless is expensive, we don't need to purchase a lot of equipment. Two or three access points can cover an area of about 2,000 meters.

Cisco Wireless WAN is expensive. We have a three-year license.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN nine out of 10. I recommend it if you're looking for a stable wireless solution with a wide coverage area.

We're a higher ed campus. So, we have Cisco Wireless prevalent throughout all of our buildings for students, faculty, and staff to access the network.

We are using its latest version.

Reliability and visibility in the product are most valuable. We are able to see client performance, signal strength for clients, and things like that.

The cost and support should be improved, and there should be support for the 6E standard.

I have about 25 years of experience. 

Its stability is good.

Its scalability is good.

It's hit and miss with tech support. If you get a good engineer, things go well. Oftentimes, you'll get a new engineer or a first-line engineer who is not so good.

It was straightforward.

The cost of licensing should be improved.

My advice would be to negotiate the price as much as you can. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We are a hotel. We primarily use the solution for wireless access for the hotel and for accommodations. 

The stability is okay.

The product can scale well.

Technical support can be helpful.

Overall, the concept of the solution is great.

The initial setup is somewhat complex. 

I need to look deeper into the DNA of the solution before making any suggestions for the solution. I need to do more research.

Sometimes you do not get a good person helping you with technical support.

We did have issues with the product that made us concerned about the overall stability.

For us, we have some power issues, and we returned many items due to power issues. There may be some models that have some problems with the power. I'm not sure about this, however, when we used some, Cisco responded clearly and they replaced them. However, this experience made us concerned about the overall stability potential.

The scalability is okay. A company can expand it if they need to.

We have over 700 people using the solution currently. They cover all types of roles and at different levels.

We likely will increase usage in the future. I already issued a purchase order to make an incremental increase to the current wireless resolution. That will be something like 5% or 7%.

In many cases, technical support is excellent. In some cases, however, they are not confident enough. They are following a checklist more than problem-solving in some cases. They repeat the same solution many times without results. The tickets are open for a long time. That said, in many cases, they are excellent.

We found the initial setup to be a bit complex. It was not simple or straightforward. I'd rate my experience with the process, at a four out of five.

We deployed the solution over the course of two years.  

We both had a vendor assist us and had our in-house team handle some elements of the installation. We did not have a good experience with the third-party service provider.

The cost was a mix between the license, manpower, and hardware. It was different from layer to layer. The hard costs are only 45% of the actual costs.

I use two different versions of the solution. 

Would rate the solution a seven out of ten.